Buy the best optic you can afford.
There is no such thing as a cheap scope that preforms well in low light.
Most scopes look pretty much the same mid afternoon in the gun shop. Where you separate good from crap is at twilight in the woods, Cheap scopes are dim, don't transmit much light and 'shut down' earlier. A good scope has a fair bit of money tied up in better glass and antireflective coatings that help transmit light when there is little of it left. Look for "Fully, multicoated lenses". Not just fully. Not just multi. But rather both.
Do not get a scope more than 3-9x. 3-9 is good for all reasonable distances. When you go to 4-12x or more, field of view gets smaller, and the rifle starts seeming very twitchy on target in most field conditions. I use 1.6-6x for most, 2.5-8x for longer ranges. A smaller magnification means wider field of view at short ranges, which is often more important than more magnification at long ranges.
It's hard to find a really good scope for $250. Some that are close and are good for the money are Weaver's Grandslam, and Super slam (look for sales at www.natchezss.com). Leupold's cheaper scopes (rifleman, VX-1) aren't great deals. These are 'made to price point' scopes, intended to trade on the leupold name while offering lower quality. Vx2 are good. VX3's are better. I've heard some good things about Sightron II, and their 3-9x would work well for you. so would a bushnell elite 3-9x 40.
An illuminated reticle is an added complication and expense that will not serve you well at the $250 price point. At $250 you aren't quite into the 'good' scope category. You can either get a fair scope with a traditional reticle for $250, or you can get what amounts to a $150 scope to which they added some cheapo electronics. You'll see the reticle, but not the deer in low light.
That does look like a pre accutrigger model. Trigger pull may be a bear. It's adjustable. If the trigger isn't good, take it to a real gunsmith and have it adjusted. It will be $30 well spent.
Fro